Slashdot Mirror


Google's Search Copying Accusation Called 'Silly'

itwbennett writes "Google's Bing sting, reported in Slashdot just days ago and subsequently denied by Microsoft, is now being called 'silly' and 'petty' by search industry analysts and execs. The reason: it would be impossible for Microsoft to use the copied results to reverse engineer Google's search algorithms. And in fact it is more likely that Microsoft was conducting competitive research. Charlene Li, founder of technology research and advisory firm Altimeter Group, saw Google's actions as a misguided response to a real threat from a competitor in its core search business. 'Google isn't used to having competition. You look at this incident and you wonder why they are doing this. It feels amateurish in a way, a kind of 'they're not playing fair' attitude,' she said."

17 of 380 comments (clear)

  1. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They don't have to copy an algorithm if they are just copying search results. This response is amateur.

    1. Re:Seriously? by ILuvRamen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree totally. What "research" includes looking for an already searched term on Google and then looking at what results come up...then slapping them into your own live result list for the general public? Bing's cheap algorithm is some search and crawling technology from like 2007 mixed with marketing, marketing, MARKETING! Oh, and flashy features that don't really work. So it's not that shocking that they're ripping off other people's results because their product is pretty hollow to begin with.

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    2. Re:Seriously? by Korin43 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey, looking at the test next to mine isn't cheating. It's not like I could reverse-engineer the other students algorithm by looking at his test!

    3. Re:Seriously? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No kidding. I'm used to nonsense from "industry analysts", but this takes the cake. It's a complete non-sequitur. This never was a question of reverse-engineering. It's a question of straight-up ripping off results.

      On a related note, what's with all the Google-bashing recently? First the idea (which has now turned into a meme) that Google's search result are not the gold standard for search anymore, and now the idea (probably soon to be turned into a meme) that Google can't handle competition and is resorting to FUD?

      Yes, Google is no saint, it's not perfect. No shit, Sherlock. But if all I did was read "industry analysts" and various websites, I'd think that Google was about to fall apart, what with search sucking and all other products completely falling flat on their face. There's either a general search for the same story going on (Look Ma! I broke the news of Google sucking first!), or some grade A bullshitting is taking place.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:Seriously? by sortius_nod · · Score: 5, Informative

      What's worse is that Microsoft is a client of Altimeter Group:

      http://www.altimetergroup.com/disclosure

      Sorry Slashdot, maybe before pushing a story to front page you do a bit of research. The story was submitted by IDG (itwbennett), one of the biggest Microsoft shills on the net. This is all getting out of hand, Microsoft is in damage control and just pushing this FUD about to ensure that faithful Bingsheep keep thinking it's "the best search provider".

    5. Re:Seriously? by sortius_nod · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry to reply to myself, but I just checked out Charlene's Twitter feed.

      http://twitter.com/#!/charleneli

      Can we say Microsoft shill?

    6. Re:Seriously? by ThePromenader · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I also agree - Bing is cheating. Never mind Google, they're second-sourcing ~everyone's~ results without giving them credit.

      Every search engine has its own search methods and data-parsing algorithms (down to the lowest in-site-search php code), and it is these algorithms that provide the 'top results' that bing toolbar (and/or IE) users are clicking on. Never mind the Bing toolbar user; what if the owner/creator of a search engine doesn't want any data generated by it to be sent to Bing - where does ~he~ opt out of MS' data-sculling program?

      Bing's tactics are distasteful for many reasons, but mainly a) because they exploit (toolbar) users to scull data from competitors and b) because Bing uses this data to provide 'top results' that it obviously values above those provided by its own algorithm. This is borderline - if not outright - industrial espionage.

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    7. Re:Seriously? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A pure marketing lead response is 100% right. The funniest thing was that the attempt to claim click fraud. If we remember click fraud is where a site owner tries to get advertising revenue by making fraudulent clicks. I don't see how Google manages to get advertising revenue from Bing. This just seems to be a case of when you get caught start slinging as much mud around randomly as you can and hope people don't notice.

      In case people haven't noticed; what Google has discovered means that if you have private information leaked somewhere (e.g. a password in an SQL query) this means that bing is now pushing that straight from your browser (where it should normally be safe) onto the web. I'm surprised nobody has managed to find a bunch of interesting secret information in bing based on this. There must be some way to get it out. A good chance would be looking for unique keys in URLs or web pages and then feeding them into Bing.

      This just looks so obviously terribly wrong that you can see that Microsoft really doesn't have a clue about search. No wonder they have to copy.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    8. Re:Seriously? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On a related note, what's with all the Google-bashing recently?

      I've seen some of it followed up on Grocklaw. As usual, it seems to trace back to Microsoft astro-turfers and lobby groups of various kinds. Microsoft seems to be pushing for some anti-Google anti-trust lawsuits, probably as a pre-emptive move to make any Google anti-trust moves more difficult during the various anti-patent lawsuits.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    9. Re:Seriously? by horza · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With tweets like "At Microsoft Productivity Council mtg on future of Office" and worse "Ribbon Hero which teaches how to use MSFT Office better. Making work (gasp!) fun", Charlene Li is obviously blatently dishonest in her representation of her position.

      "Charlene Li, founder of technology research and advisory firm Altimeter Group" - and as sortius_nod says, now paid shill.

      Phillip.

    10. Re:Seriously? by nstlgc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First of all, I don't think Google has a copyright on any of the content they index, do they?

      Second, as I understand it, clickstream data points are only a small part of the equation. Notice how Google could only reproduce this by using totally bogus keywords, ensuring that the data they fed to Bing through the toolbar were the only data points being considered for those keywords?

      Bing tracks when users search for something, and what sites they visit as a result. I'd almost be offended intellectually if this was not part of their game to provide me with better search results.

      Disclaimer: I use Google almost exclusively. Bing can suck it, but this debate is ridiculously biased.

      --
      I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
  2. "Competitive Research" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't see this phrase going down well in any other industry. If you copy a map or a book or the design for a car from a different company in the same field, you wouldn't get out of it by calling it "competitive research". Microsoft doesn't need to reverse engineer google's algorithm if they can just steal their results directly; in fact, it's simpler this way because it cuts out the middle part where they even bother to figure out how it works.

    1. Re:"Competitive Research" by grantek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not "research" if the leeched data appears on your production site automatically and without review...

  3. It worked, though. by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It worked, though. It diverted attention from Microsoft's accusation that Google profits from search spam.

  4. Microsoft is responding with misdirection by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They seem to be dancing around the core charge of copying what were nonsensical search results that, if not copied from Google, should not have returned any results. They also seem to be attempting to misdirect in talking about "copying Google's algorithm", when I believe the charge is specifically about copying search results.

    I did note that the "Altimeter Group" has only been around a couple years - and has a very website that is full of vague social media-related buzzwords without indicating what, exactly, is their actual skillset (if anything).

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  5. Clearly an unbiased voice in this discussion by Cyberllama · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hey it's not like Microsoft is a client of the "Altimeter Group" and Google is not.

    http://www.altimetergroup.com/disclosure

    Oh? It's exactly like that?

    Look. Nobody thinks that Microsoft is "trying to reverse engineer their algorithm" from search results, but what they are apparently doing is harvesting user data from clicks. It appears that when a user searches from something, and clicks a link as a result of that search, the search term and site that the user found relevant is collected and used in their own search algorithm -- so they are, to some degree, piggybacking on Google here.

    On the one hand, its good to know what link your user found relevant -- that's important data for your own search engine to have, on the other hand that's really the sort of thing you should be gathering from your own damn search engine. I'm sure that by now, enough people are using Bing that they can get this data on their own. The only thing getting it through the browser instead of through bing allows them to do is gather it from Google users as well, which is essentially allowing them to tune their own algotrithm on the back of Google's.

    It's shady to say the least. Perhaps it was created with good intent -- as discovery tool for when users are on websites with internal search engines, but its obviously pulling in a lot more than that. If Microsoft continues to abuse that, they deserve any bad publicity they get as a result.

  6. I think this article says everything... by Missing.Matter · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think this article says everything that needs to be said on the issue:

    http://searchengineland.com/bing-why-googles-wrong-in-its-accusations-63279

    Essentially Bing's defense (as outlined in the article) goes like this:

    • Bing is monitoring users who opted in to send Bing data. They are watching their activity on any site, and not specifically Google.
    • The search signal generated by users does not dominate, unless it's the only signal (as Google tried to ensure it would be) it will have more weight, but not absolute. Even Google's test showed this to be true, as only a fraction of their honeypot terms made it to the other side.
    • Less frequent seach terms (the example given is pontneddfechan) Bing's results are relevant, unique, and ordered differently from Google's. Google's tests reveal the very special case where 0 signal comes from other sources.
    • What's the BFD in the end? Google alleges Bing is stealing results, but only shows one concrete example of this (tarsorrhaphy), which can be easily accounted for by crawling Wikipedia, which seems much more likely.